Given a referendum is non-binding, is it still possible Britain might see sense, do nothing about it and just stick with the EU? Isn't triggering the exit still in their own hands, given it's upto them to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

We had a referendum in Scotland in 1979 with very similar results in terms of proportions, 52% for and 48% against with a voter turnout of around 64%.

An act was passed (AFTERWORDS if I recall correctly), which effectively cancelled the referendum and the results were repealed on the basis that the winning vote represented less than 40% of eligible voters (same as this one).

Not that I’m suggesting this happens, but if that rule is applied to Scotland when it suits then why not now?

Last edited by Biffa on Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Given a referendum is non-binding, is it still possible Britain might see sense, do nothing about it and just stick with the EU? Isn't triggering the exit still in their own hands, given it's upto them to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

It sounds like the various European factions are wanting and urging the UK to get on with things. But there is no mechanism to compel the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Article 50 is there to allow withdrawal, but no other state or institution has the right to invoke this.

_________________You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do. Lewis Hamilton

Given a referendum is non-binding, is it still possible Britain might see sense, do nothing about it and just stick with the EU? Isn't triggering the exit still in their own hands, given it's upto them to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

It sounds like the various European factions are wanting and urging the UK to get on with things. But there is no mechanism to compel the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Article 50 is there to allow withdrawal, but no other state or institution has the right to invoke this.

Just reading an article on an exit website and it claims "Boris" has said it would be better to wait a year or two before invoking article 50. Seems they would prefer to wait until the new governments are in place in Germany and France so they are dealing with the same people right through.

The petition is well passed 2.5 million now, the politicians who were using it for party purposes have realised the bluff has been called and many are reconsidering. There is hope yet that the sensible brigade may win through

A poll conducted by the Mail has revealed that 1.1 million people who voted Leave would now vote Remain. Given that the Remain turnout was lower (due to flooding in the south where there was a higher % of Remain voters, and an assumption that Remain was going to win, low turnout in Scotland, and only a 40% turnout of the 18-24 year olds who presumably would turn out in greater numbers now) this would result in a much bigger victory to Remain than the one Leave got.

EU isn't really governed entirely by elected representatives, that's exactly why 'not having a say in the rules' was one of the key factors in the Leave campaign. That being said, Britain will definitely have a disadvantage by not having a seat at tables where collective decisions are made affecting EU members, because their relationships with EU members will be entirely economic, not administrative.

Actually...

Quote:

The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries). The Commission drafts and implements EU legislation.

http://europa.eu/eu-law/index_en.htm

Quote:

In the EU's unique institutional set-up:•the EU's broad priorities are set by the European Council, which brings together national and EU-level leaders•directly elected MEPs represent European citizens in the European Parliament•the interests of the EU as a whole are promoted by the European Commission, whose members are appointed by national governments•governments defend their own country's national interests in the Council of the European Union.

The European Council sets the EU's overall political direction – but has no powers to pass laws. Led by its President – currently Donald Tusk – and comprising national heads of state or government and the President of the Commission, it meets for a few days at a time at least twice every 6 months.

Law-making

There are 3 main institutions involved in EU legislation:•the European Parliament, which represents the EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them;•the Council of the European Union, which represents the governments of the individual member countries. The Presidency of the Council is shared by the member states on a rotating basis.•the European Commission, which represents the interests of the Union as a whole.

Together, these three institutions produce through the "Ordinary Legislative Procedure" (ex "co-decision") the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU. In principle, the Commission proposes new laws, and the Parliament and Council adopt them. The Commission and the member countries then implement them, and the Commission ensures that the laws are properly applied and implemented

http://europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/index_en.htm#goto_4

In many respects the UK is run / administered by around about 1,000 unelected government bodies (quangos) and an army of civil servants, and the decisions made by many of these unelected bodies have a very real impact on peoples' every day lives - e.g. NICE decide what treatments are available through the NHS.Who voted for David Haslam to become chairman of NICE? No one has ever even heard of him, but he effectively decides who lives and who dies - that's the sort of democracy we have in the UK.

Petition just hit 3 million, crazy how much support there is for it, I genuinely didn't expect it to reach half a million.

The wording of the petition is wrong, but the aim isn't. It should really reference the fact that people were lied to and misled, and that people should be allowed to rectify their mistakes now they have a better understanding of what the vote really meant.

This isn't a general election where we can change our minds in 5 years, it's for ever, and the most important decision in generations should not have been based on lies and deliberate misinformation.

I personally think it would take at least 18M signatures before it was taken seriously though.

Petition just hit 3 million, crazy how much support there is for it, I genuinely didn't expect it to reach half a million.

The wording of the petition is wrong, but the aim isn't. It should really reference the fact that people were lied to and misled, and that people should be allowed to rectify their mistakes now they have a better understanding of what the vote really meant.

This isn't a general election where we can change our minds in 5 years, it's for ever, and the most important decision in generations should not have been based on lies and deliberate misinformation.

I personally think it would take at least 18M signatures before it was taken seriously though.

I believe the wording was created by someone who voted leave. It was created before the referendum happened because he expected a Remain vote to win.

Petition just hit 3 million, crazy how much support there is for it, I genuinely didn't expect it to reach half a million.

I'm pretty sure if it was remain, you'll also have millions signing for a re-vote. And you have never ending petitions from there. The public should just accept the results and let the PM decide if he wants to carry out the referendum. But having 2nd one should not even be considered.

Petition just hit 3 million, crazy how much support there is for it, I genuinely didn't expect it to reach half a million.

I'm pretty sure if it was remain, you'll also have millions signing for a re-vote. And you have never ending petitions from there. The public should just accept the results and let the PM decide if he wants to carry out the referendum. But having 2nd one should not even be considered.

There is no PM to decide this. Whilst he may still be in power, he clearly resigned to avoid having to do anything about this and I don't see how anyone would want to accept such a position at the moment.

I still don't believe Brexit will happen. Since the vast majority of MPs are pro-EU and all the Scottish ones, how would it be voted through parliament? I can't believe that something so momentous would be allowed to pass without a fight. I think at the moment the MPs are letting things play out in the interests of ramping up pressure so that when they do call for a second referendum the vote will be a clear Remain.

Also it seems that other countries in the EU are worried that without the U K, Germany will be too dominant in the EU. Maybe they should have thought about that when Cameron was securing his 'deal'? I think Boris is right about waiting it out, who knows what might happen now, if other countries vote to leave then our position will become stronger again.

Cameron has been pretty smart, handing the baton of 'the man who pulled the plug' on to his successor. And presumably that successor would have to be a Eurosceptic, but then why would the Conservatives elect a minority PM? Makes no sense.

Sounds like Sturgeon's been given a reality check by the EU too, interesting. Don't think I can face the arguments over keeping the Pound etc all over again...

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

The state of the debate about the referendum displayed the absolute contempt with which a disturbingly large amount of our elected officials view the electorate. Both sides were more concerned about winning their personal battles and scoring points over each other than actually openly debating the issues that the population deems to be important.

If you have no money, no job and very little prospect of owning your own house, why would you care if others lose their job because their merchant bank relocates to Dublin or Frankfurt? You care that your life is rubbish and it has to be someones fault. Farage for all his many, many, many, many, many faults seemed to have the ability grasp this concept and apply pressure where it was required to tip the balance in favour of leaving. Hence the reprehensible poster. Make no mistake, this result was based for the most part on immigration and the lack of a credible, responsible and effective policy. Note, I am not saying it was based on xenophobia or racism, but if this area is not addressed in a sensible way and pretty darned quickly, extremism will rise.

Politics and nature both abhor a vacuum and it does not take long for a perfectly reasonable concern to transform into something vile and repugnant. We now need to accept the result and as a nation start to sort our-selves out. Personally, I think that the outcome of leaving the EU is so serious that we should maybe consider the Article 50 talks as being off limits for electioneering and make sure that the best people irrespective of party are taking part.

I have been watching a lot of TV and reading a lot of opinions and articles in the past couple of days and only 2 people have stood out for me. Angela Merkel and believe it or not, Tony Blair. Out of this whole sorry mess, they are the only 2 people that I have seen behave in anything approaching the statesman/stateswoman-like manner I would expect from such influential people. Merkel has given the EU and her own foreign minister a very subtle dressing down after the jilted spouse-like reactions yesterday ("take your stuff and get out"), and I saw an interview today with Blair and, like or loath him, he is a man who has passion, charisma and a commanding presence. Something that UK politics is lacking an a big, big way. You only have to look at the two main UK parties who are both in self destruct mode to know that.

The more I think about it, the more I think that we should have a wartime-like coalition where all parties sit on the cabinet for the next 2 years to deal with Brexit and only when we are out should we have a General Election. This is far too important for the political shenanigans of these f-wits.

An official investigation has been launched into fraudulent signatures on the 2nd referendum petition. Over claims it has received 39,000 signatures from the Vatican, which has a population of 800.

Articles state that 2.5 million signatures have been verified as coming from within the UK though.

I was wondering what the requirements are for voting on the petition and how they're verified. I couldn't find anything on the site that addresses either of those things other than it being for UK citizens.

This led me to look at the whitehouse.gov petition process and was disappointed to see that, while the rules are more clearly defined, you only have to be 13 (and a citizen) to create an account and sign petitions there.

This is worth reading. Brexit ain't gonna happen, even Boris is stalling now...

Good read, but the article is dated June 14th, before the result. I also think the final departure will not happen, but there was enough information in that result for the government to see people are not happy with it. I believe this is down more to us not being informed properly of what goes on. A newspaper headline " Euro (whatever) bans powerful vacuum cleaners" on Idiot newspapers completely misguide people and make them think it is run by idiots. There are good reasons behind that, and the "straight bananas" thing, but they are never explained.

For instance, the cleaner thing is not a "ban on powerful cleaners" at all, it is that they will not be given an "A" efficiency rating just as a 6ltr 2 seat car is unlikely to get zero emissions tax break.

A few newspapers ( and I use the term very loosely) are all about headlines and do not bother giving detail.

This is worth reading. Brexit ain't gonna happen, even Boris is stalling now...

Good read, but the article is dated June 14th, before the result. I also think the final departure will not happen, but there was enough information in that result for the government to see people are not happy with it. I believe this is down more to us not being informed properly of what goes on. A newspaper headline " Euro (whatever) bans powerful vacuum cleaners" on Idiot newspapers completely misguide people and make them think it is run by idiots. There are good reasons behind that, and the "straight bananas" thing, but they are never explained.

For instance, the cleaner thing is not a "ban on powerful cleaners" at all, it is that they will not be given an "A" efficiency rating just as a 6ltr 2 seat car is unlikely to get zero emissions tax break.

A few newspapers ( and I use the term very loosely) are all about headlines and do not bother giving detail.

I know it was written before the vote, but it doesn't actually change anything, he's actually predicted that the Government would be in no rush to push the button. I think what it's about now is seeing how the EU react, and maximising our position with the threat that we could leave whilst also having the knowledge that no one can actually force us to do so, and indeed that the referendum has no legal weight either. I don't expect another referendum until it suits 'us' to clarify our position.

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I still don't believe Brexit will happen. Since the vast majority of MPs are pro-EU and all the Scottish ones, how would it be voted through parliament? I can't believe that something so momentous would be allowed to pass without a fight. I think at the moment the MPs are letting things play out in the interests of ramping up pressure so that when they do call for a second referendum the vote will be a clear Remain.

And if the 2nd referendum isn't clear, u get a 3rd, 4th and it goes on and on. This isn't the NBA best of 7 series. The public has been informed well in advance what they were voting for. The media reports of random folks having regrets are not relevant as it would be the same had the vote swayed the other way.

The point is the democratic processes must be respected. Nowhere it states the referendum needs a 60% majority. It's simply majority. And the majority has decided. It would be a joke on Britain if they want to do a 2nd one. Perhaps they should even consider a tie breaker!

The point is the democratic processes must be respected. Nowhere it states the referendum needs a 60% majority. It's simply majority. And the majority has decided. It would be a joke on Britain if they want to do a 2nd one. Perhaps they should even consider a tie breaker!

The public was informed this was an advisory referendum though. So by your logic the Government can fairly choose to ignore it.

The point is the democratic processes must be respected. Nowhere it states the referendum needs a 60% majority. It's simply majority. And the majority has decided. It would be a joke on Britain if they want to do a 2nd one. Perhaps they should even consider a tie breaker!

The public was informed this was an advisory referendum though. So by your logic the Government can fairly choose to ignore it.

In that case, was the public informed about the nature of the referendum as advisory, then the Government being the democratically elected government, their eventual decision to act differently than the result of the referendum, would be acting well within the democratic process. No controversy.

This is worth reading. Brexit ain't gonna happen, even Boris is stalling now...

Good read, but the article is dated June 14th, before the result. I also think the final departure will not happen, but there was enough information in that result for the government to see people are not happy with it. I believe this is down more to us not being informed properly of what goes on. A newspaper headline " Euro (whatever) bans powerful vacuum cleaners" on Idiot newspapers completely misguide people and make them think it is run by idiots. There are good reasons behind that, and the "straight bananas" thing, but they are never explained.

For instance, the cleaner thing is not a "ban on powerful cleaners" at all, it is that they will not be given an "A" efficiency rating just as a 6ltr 2 seat car is unlikely to get zero emissions tax break.

A few newspapers ( and I use the term very loosely) are all about headlines and do not bother giving detail.

I know it was written before the vote, but it doesn't actually change anything, he's actually predicted that the Government would be in no rush to push the button. I think what it's about now is seeing how the EU react, and maximising our position with the threat that we could leave whilst also having the knowledge that no one can actually force us to do so, and indeed that the referendum has no legal weight either. I don't expect another referendum until it suits 'us' to clarify our position.

Of course, not dis-ing the article its good. I meant that was written with a "will not be used" mind set, I was wondering how (s)he felt now? Even the Prime minister did not want to be associated with being the man who puled the plug, and Boris, touted as the next PM has more or less said there is no rush. Looking else where, (and chewing in the local ) there seems to be so much upheaval in politics that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a new party may emerge from the rubble of the others with the flag of "dont go through with it" and try to force an election based on this single issue.

It's what I said would happen England/Wales apart from London would vote Brexit and Scotland would vote to remain in Europe.

I thought Northern Ireland would vote Brexit though.

The UK this morning is a divided nation.

Happy day's Scottish Indy Ref 2 here we go again?

And calls for an Irish vote...

Northern Ireland not my problem.

Though can't see that one happening.

So as NI and Scotland were in favour or stay, if they do have an independence vote and it goes through, can the re take their place?

According to this, there would be no automatic resumption of membership. Scotland would have to re-apply if it gained independence under a second independence referendum. I presume the same rules would apply to NI.

I think the UK should be split up on a town by town and city by city basis, so that everyone gets what they want.e.g. Derby could have a big fence around it, with a single entry point and armed guards keeping foreigners out, and if people from Derby want to go shopping in Nottingham, they have to get a visa first and then pay import duty on what ever they buy.

Also, now the Brexit campaigners have sorted out the foreigners, they can move on to other pressing issues such as anyone who hasn't got the right colour skin. Then maybe Muslims (or anyone who might be a Muslim), then perhaps gays, and finally focus on people with the wrong sort of attitude, strange sounding names, or any other characteristic that's not 100% British.

I think the UK should be split up on a town by town and city by city basis, so that everyone gets what they want.e.g. Derby could have a big fence around it, with a single entry point and armed guards keeping foreigners out, and if people from Derby want to go shopping in Nottingham, they have to get a visa first and then pay import duty on what ever they buy.

Also, now the Brexit campaigners have sorted out the foreigners, they can move on to other pressing issues such as anyone who hasn't got the right colour skin. Then maybe Muslims (or anyone who might be a Muslim), then perhaps gays, and finally focus on people with the wrong sort of attitude, strange sounding names, or any other characteristic that's not 100% British.

Hmm. I don't actually think you'd be able to find 17m people in the UK who fit your description (white middle class bigoted homophobes), do you not think that at least some of those people may have voted for Brexit? Maybe they voted that way because they didn't want to bail out the Italians, or they didn't want to be part of a Federalist Europe with non-electable leaders?

_________________Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

Now while Boris' article claims he will still be able to use the saved money for public services and that there will a points based border system, neither of which will be true for as long as we remain in the single market, he doesn't believe it. As if Europe will allow us to keep the perks of membership but drop all the bits that don't suit us (according to the leave argument at least). Yeah right, if the EU allowed that then the union would be finished and they know it.

He just needs to stick to what he was saying in the run up to the referendum for now, but in negotiations that will change and the broken promises will mount up. So basically we will trade a couple of good things for a couple of bad things about Europe but for the most part very little will change. It seems like such a waste to divide up the nation like this and embolden racist/xenophobic minority groups for what will actually amount to very little change.

I also predict a lot of people who voted out on the basis of immigration will be left disappointed by the continuation of free movement, and I admit the thought of that pleases me.

The referendum was advisory, Parliament doesn't have to follow it but it has made clear that it will (at the moment)

Therefore. What did the referendum ask?

"Should we remain a member of the European Union"

Ok.

We voted no, leave the EU.

We didn't vote: "Should we stop paying money to the EU?"

Or "Should we stop the free movement of people deal with the EU?"

Neither of which are conditions of being in the EU, they are conditions of being in the EEA (Which just happens to be a prerequisite of EU membership)

Consequently, we can simply leave the EU and remain in the EEA, thus fulfilling the conditions of the democratic mandate given by the referendum. We've left the EU, democracy solved!

Of course, the reality of EEA membership is as follows:

We still have to pay the same membership fees.We still have to allow free movement of people.

Those two things don't change.

What does change is:

We lose our voting power on EU rulesWe lose our rebateThe pound has lost 10% of its value.

Assuming Brexit does happen, this is the best case scenario for the EU and the UK. We've been told Brexit it happening, and a second referendum will not happen, and that the decision of the referendum will be respected.

Now while Boris' article claims he will still be able to use the saved money for public services and that there will a points based border system, neither of which will be true for as long as we remain in the single market, he doesn't believe it. As if Europe will allow us to keep the perks of membership but drop all the bits that don't suit us (according to the leave argument at least). Yeah right, if the EU allowed that then the union would be finished and they know it.

He just needs to stick to what he was saying in the run up to the referendum for now, but in negotiations that will change and the broken promises will mount up. So basically we will trade a couple of good things for a couple of bad things about Europe but for the most part very little will change. It seems like such a waste to divide up the nation like this and embolden racist/xenophobic minority groups for what will actually amount to very little change.

I also predict a lot of people who voted out on the basis of immigration will be left disappointed by the continuation of free movement, and I admit the thought of that pleases me.

Already economists and some politicians are predicting the most likely outcome is a deal based around EEA (European Economic Area) membership, so we would retain many of the benefits without being a full member.

The ironic thing is, in that scenario we still pay into the EU (at a slightly lower rate), we still have freedom of movement, and we still have to abide by EU regulations. In other words the very things vote leave campaigned against may not actually change very much, still at least ‘we’ve got the country back’

I think the UK should be split up on a town by town and city by city basis, so that everyone gets what they want.e.g. Derby could have a big fence around it, with a single entry point and armed guards keeping foreigners out, and if people from Derby want to go shopping in Nottingham, they have to get a visa first and then pay import duty on what ever they buy.

Also, now the Brexit campaigners have sorted out the foreigners, they can move on to other pressing issues such as anyone who hasn't got the right colour skin. Then maybe Muslims (or anyone who might be a Muslim), then perhaps gays, and finally focus on people with the wrong sort of attitude, strange sounding names, or any other characteristic that's not 100% British.

Ouch! Personally, I think the British are generally a very tolerant nation. I genuinely don’t believe that the majority of people who voted Brexit are inherently racist or xenophobic. And that’s been my personal experience of Brexiters too (I voted Remain). Agreed, the out ticket was often sold on a distasteful menu of negativity towards immigration, but I sincerely believe that the British as a whole do not have a problem with immigrants or immigration per se. It’s uncontrolled immigration that’s the problem. We are a small, overcrowded island with limited resources. Excessive EU migration will place extra burdens on our already stretched schools, hospitals & housing stock etc. Perhaps it’s these legitimate concerns regarding pressurised resources, rather than any pure, unadulterated hate for foreigners, that compelled many to vote out. And it’s worth remembering that Brexit did not only campaign about immigration. Perhaps their other arguments concerning EU bureaucracy, sovereignty or whatever, proved equally as influential for many. I was just reading an interesting article on why support for Brexit was so strong in certain areas. It highlighted Sunderland where 61% voted leave-despite being the recipients of generous EU grants and funding. The response of those interviewed in the article told a different story. It had nothing to do with racism or xenophobia but rather a feeling of disillusionment and near disenfranchisement. Those leave voters who were interviewed in the piece complained that the nation’s power, money & prestige were too concentrated in wealthy London. They felt unable to share in that prosperity and simply felt ignored by the Government and Westminster elite. Voting leave was their way of protesting against this. One interviewee described the referendum as an opportunity to “poke the eye” of Mr. Cameron! Well it certainly has achieved that! Let’s not fall into the trap of labeling the British or indeed Brexiters a bunch of nasty bigots for voting out. We can all appreciate a wider, more complex picture out there.

_________________You just need to be accepted for who you are and be proud of who you are and that is what I'm trying to do. Lewis Hamilton

More to consider. Apparently, the PM is not empowered to action Art 50, it must come from parliament. Am I right in believing more MP's are not in favour of exit than are? If so, it is not going to get through.

BTW, there is a brilliant vid here, based on the Monty Python. His final response had me in stitches.